FIDE Election for President

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Ask one of your Russian chess friends or do a careful google search. It seems to be common knowledge. I am not making accusations. I am not even asking for explanations, just assurances that such things wouldn't happen again. So far I don't even have that.

If you go with Shirov vs Kasparov that would be more appropriate to if "such things wouldn't happen again". Kasparov vs Salov was a personal matter. Kasparov did not need to play in commercial tournaments against (or with) somebody who talked trash about him. Organizers needed to make choice whom to invite. Montreal also excluded Korchnoi from their top tournament in 1979. Kramnik did not talk or handshaked with Topalov for ages. Alekhine was running from Capablanca, as Kramnik ignored Kasparov. Nakamura was ignored for a long time in Europe too.

Salov reached his peak ~1995 but at the same time he lost a match to Kamsky by a good margin ~4 points. After that Salov's performance started to go down. A similar thing happened to Sokolov after Karpov match; even Spraggett beat him LOL Ironically Kamsky went in hiatus too after loss to Karpov.

Thus,imho rumors that Kasparov ruined Salov are BS.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Thus,imho rumors that Kasparov ruined Salov are BS.

Perhaps it would help to dispel those rumours if he didn't publicly take credit for doing so.

[Garland Best]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Perhaps it would help to dispel those rumours if he didn't publicly take credit for doing so.

Please provide link. Thanks.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Perhaps it would help to dispel those rumours if he didn't publicly take credit for doing so.

Please cite your source or people who heard that. I don't recall reading that.

Kasparov told many good and bad things. They are more or less Earth-base not like Kirsan's space dreams.


[almost duplicate. sorry :/ ]

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Please provide link. Thanks.

Garland, if you haven't learned by now, Vlad doesn't need to provide any substantiation of his claims. He has been stating throughout this thread that "the truth will become apparent". If you are a CFC member, this is your President telling you not to question his authority nor his methods. He has just come down the mountain with the holy tablets (too bad he hadn't disappeared for 40 days and nights for effect).

In case it wasn't clear enough, you also had Nigel Hanrahan, a non-CFC member, lecturing Sid Belzberg, a potential CFC sponsor, that the CFC elected officials "have access to more information than the majority of the members". As if Sid was born yesterday, not to mention a total slap in the face to the members. So you have a non-member chasing away a sponsor who could have made a big difference in the future of the CFC, for the good, all on the basis of a snobbish, elitist attitude that the people in power know what is best and don't dare question them.

Vlad also made clear that he's on a mission for what is best for the CFC and for chess in Canada, that he is a seeker of wisdom and truth, that he is a servant and not a master, he took the position reluctantly, he won't bend over for a sponsor (which sounds fine until you realize that in this thread, he didn't give Sid an iota of respect, not so much as the benefit of the doubt, but instead totally misinterpreted Sid's postings as 'demands' that the Executive vote for Gary -- which all you have to do is read Sid's postings to see there never was any such demand)... a bunch of puritanical BS designed solely to make the membership just hush up and let him be the miracle worker the CFC has been waiting for. And in case you didn't catch it, Vlad is making his assessments based on EMAILS. He told Tom O'Donnell that all Tom had to do was see Vlad's email inbox and Tom would change his mind on who the Executive should vote for. If you haven't seen that, it's in this thread, plain as day.

That's right -- the very person who loves to post about climate change scientists and their doctored emails is making assessments based on emails.

If you are a CFC member and consider yourself too intelligent to be bushwacked by this crap, I can only wish you the best of luck in doing something about it. The CFC is definitely going in a "secret society" direction, and sponsors who expect to have any say or influence in that can just take their money elsewhere. Nigel is now sycophant to Vlad, even saying he'll rejoin the CFC (read: "I want in on this so I can be part of the CFC elite").

Bob Gillanders, if you're reading this, you should reconsider your choice to take over as E.D. You should run, not walk, away from these people.

And poor Hal Bond, what's he to think now that he realizes he's been put in a bad position where there is the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest? All of Vlad's platitudes towards Hal don't mean diddly to some sponsor to whom both Hal and Vlad are total strangers. That was the message from Sid that still hasn't penetrated into Vlad's skull. Maybe Sid should sent Vlad an email!

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

If the CFC wants its president to be an obsequious boot licker at the first whiff of money with multiple strings including impossible conditions attached then they really need to find someone else to fill the job. I could put that a bit more crudely but there may be kids reading.

Actually Nigel, like most objective readers did get it right. Its just that I don't need to hide behind a moderator. I can defend myself. At least I can defend myself if I am allowed to be brutally honest. If some can't handle the truth as I see it then don't read what I have to say. I am not a perfect person. I make mistakes. I get angry when people get trampled on and as CFC president I am entitled some respect particularly when someone is demanding that I do something which I have not been persuaded is in the best interest of Canadian chess. I can be persuaded by logic but I am always going to be aware of actions which speak louder than words.

So let's get this straight:

- if the Executive votes based solely on the perceived threat of recriminations, that is not unprincipled, and to call it unprincipled IS a personal insult to the Executive

- if the Executive votes based solely on a perceived reward of sponsorship from one individual, that is unprincipled. Telling that individual that his offer of sponsorship (should the overall vote, NOT the Executive vote, go his way) is unprincipled is NOT a personal insult.

If you can't see the double standard in this, you aren't 1/10th of the seeker of truth you make yourself out to be. Nigel I couldn't care less about, he can think anything he wants.

ANYONE who claims that Sid's offer of chess sponsorship should Gary win the election is unprincipled or worse should ask themselves the following questions:

1) Do you work for free? No. You work for payment of money. How unprincipled to offer your services and then demand MONEY!

2) Do you pay someone to do work for you? How unprincipled of you to tempt them with MONEY to perform a service for you!

3) Have you ever voted for a politician mainly because s/he offered tax breaks for you or direct injection of funds into your riding? How unprincipled of you to expect MONEY or the saving of money from politicians in return for your vote!

4) Do you have a bank account? How unprincipled of you to put your money into an institution that only lends money if the borrower satisfies a DEMAND for interest payments!

I could go on and on. Money runs the world. Try to keep up, Nigel.



Now Vlad: PLEASE SHOW US ALL THE SENTENCE FROM SID SOMEWHERE IN THIS THREAD WHERE HE DEMANDS THAT YOU DO SOMETHING (i.e. vote for Gary).

You can't do it. It doesn't exist. Sid's 'demands' are all in your head. Here are all of Sid's statements in which he mentions himself engaging in chess sponsorship:

"The fact that I would be interested in getting involved with Canadian Chess sponsorship again if FIDE had a credible leadership that in turn would bring in credible business sponsors should also have an influence (on the Executive vote)."

Hmmm... no demands there... next:

"Yes and you can rest assured what's best for Canadian Chess is that the CFC supports Gary Kasparov."

Still no demand... just an opinion, and I doubt he's even referring to sponsorship, but merely to Gary's leadership... next:

"On the other hand if Gary wins I am highly confident that I can get Fide's support in addition to my own in all kinds of interesting programs for Canada. That is of course predicated on the idea that the CFC endorses Gary that already is getting too late."

Does anyone see a demand there? I see cause and predicted effect, but no demand. Next:

"The only irony I will ever see is if you end up endorsing Gary. I am not holding my breath."

Nobody putting a gun to anybody's head there. Next:

"I do not know the specifics of the legal structure of the CFC so I have no plans to consult an attorney."

Very passive, no threat or demand. Next:

"The question of why I or any other sponsor would be supportive of an organization that operates this way is a relevant and important question."

Benign. Next:

"Make no mistake about it, I don't expect you to do what I say, I do however, expect you to do what is reflective of the CFC member's desires even if the case was that they indeed preferred Kirsan."

Here Sid isn't even mentioning sponsorship, but instead, the will of the majority of CFC members. Even if it goes against Sid's own wishes.

So what do we have? We have ZERO demands being made, and an offer of chess sponsorship if Gary gets elected WHETHER OR NOT the Executive votes for or endorses Gary.

Yes, Vlad, it appears you DO make mistakes, and this was a big one. Since Sid has (understandably) left this forum in disgust, you need to reach out to him and apologize for totally unnecessary disrespect.

Of course, you won't even think about it. The CFC is now a secret society, led by the humble holy man, whose humility shouldn't be mistaken for accommodation to a sponsor's requests (which will be construed as demands), and who will guard the Church of CFC from all forms of corruption even if it means chasing out ALL the sponsors, and who receives mysterious and sacrosanct emails from beyond that guide his thoughts and decisions (some of those emails possibly from climate change scientists), because unfortunately, the damn government prevents him from holding referendums on major decisions. Damn government! Repeat after Vlad: Damn government! And so all decisions are made in holy meditation, using the additional evidence that most members never see and wouldn't understand even if they saw it.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Garland, if you haven't learned by now, Vlad doesn't need to provide any substantiation of his claims. He has been stating throughout this thread that "the truth will become apparent". If you are a CFC member, this is your President telling you not to question his authority nor his methods. He has just come down the mountain with the holy tablets (too bad he hadn't disappeared for 40 days and nights for effect).

Have you been spying on the super secret facebook group where we solve all the world's problems? Just last night I mentioned disappearing for forty days and forty nights.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

Have you been spying on the super secret facebook group where we solve all the world's problems? Just last night I mentioned disappearing for forty days and forty nights.

I am awed by the seriousness you attach to this situation. Your dedication to your members is truly amazing....ly pathetic.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

The harsh words on this site are not helpful in the process of chossing the candidate which the CFC endorses and/or votes for. I am not sure if much is beingaccomplished with this discussion in this location at this time.

[Vlad Dobrich]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

The harsh words on this site are not helpful in the process of chossing the candidate which the CFC endorses and/or votes for. I am not sure if much is beingaccomplished with this discussion in this location at this time.

I disagree. This thread is very helpful. CFC members are getting a clear view of their president - fully revealed, in his underwear! But do I detect a disagreeable odour?

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: FIDE Election for President

It's always interesting looking at these CFC-related posts, and noting the large number (probably the majority) of postings which are from either/both:

1) Non-CFC members (some of you had memberships that expired very recently :-) ).
2) A CFC member, but has not participated in a tournament (maybe not been near one) in many years.

[Sasha Starr]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

I disagree. This thread is very helpful. CFC members are getting a clear view of their president - fully revealed, in his underwear! But do I detect a disagreeable odour?

Well said, Vlad! I've read Chess Talk's posts from the last few days and it strikes me that our President goes all the way indeed to get his way! And he's accused of same Sid Belzberg, who did for Canadian Chess more then anybody else!
I've noticed that he makes a big deal out of poor Salov being pushed by GK. Well, I've looked at some publications, and here is one I suggests everyone reads (written by MIG, a well respected chess publicist, in about a year 2000):
"Salov was tipped as a world championship contender (meaning top player) back in the 80s and had several impressive results, including excellent performances in the World Cup series. His reputation as an endgame expert is well deserved, and was cemented when he completely crushed Alexander Khalifman in a candidates match. (Although Salov had always killed Khalifman, having a 4-1 record against him before their 1994 match, which finished 5-1, most of the games being long endings in which Khalifman was completely outclassed. Salov was later wiped out by Kamsky.)
I don't believe detail were ever made public, but Salov's career was reportedly interrupted by a serious blood disease in the early 90s (80s?). I don't find a long gap in his play, however, until the past two years.
While Salov has written several borderline insane pieces about Kasparov in New in Chess, at least they were entertaining. (And ostensibly about other things, but both swerved off into long tirades.) Mostly they were made up of criticizing everything from how Kasparov studies too much to how he was "ill-bred." You call this a "war" but that usually involves two fighting parties. It was more of a broadside and a plea for attention. Kasparov did not respond at length, although in his interview with me after the NIC articles ran he called Salov "mentally damaged." As usual all the bizarre ranting about "Kasparov destroyed my career," "world Jewry destroyed my career", and "black helicopters took my pawns", is refuted by minimal research. If Kasparov was black-listing Salov (as if somehow he had the ability to do this), why have they played ELEVEN times? (3-0 Kasparov, 8 draws.) Like most Russian 2650-range players, he found/finds it hard to get invitations due mostly to the fact that organizers don't like to have more than one or two players from the same country unless they're in the top 10. And there are far fewer invitationals now at the top level. This list includes players like Aleksandrov, Bareev, Dreev, Zvjaginsev, Khalifman, Rublevsky, et al. All Russians (Alexandrov is Belorussian), all very strong players, all lacking good invitations. Sadly you can even add a tremendous talent like Svidler to that list now. There just aren't many invitations to be had, and breaking into the top 10 (and STAYING there) is not easy. Beginning in 1997, Salov has had minus scores in almost every event in which he played. You begin to lose invitations and rating points this way. He won Wijk aan Zee in 1997 and was invited back. Then in 1998 he finished at minus two (10th place), proceeded to lose a pile of rating points, and wasn't invited back. He lost to Tkachiev in his first match of the first FIDE KO, underperformed his rating by 114 points in Belfort last year (minus one), and got wiped out 2-0 by Milos in Vegas in his first match. Gee, but it must be Kasparov forcing him to play badly in these events. It's mind control! Of course after the articles Salov wrote I don't think Kasparov could be blamed for not inviting the guy over for tea, either. His NIC articles proved that he's gone a bit nuts, if still a talented writer. It's sad because he is/was a very talented player. He comes from the cultured St.Petersburg school of chess that is better represented by educated gentlemen such as Khalifman and Svidler these days, not to mention my idol David Bronstein. I watched Salov win the Polugaevsky Sicilian Thematic Tournament in Buenos Aires in 1994. He out-Karpoved Karpov in two excellent wins. (Karpov was to exact revenge a year later in a blitz match he won 6.5-1.5.) Like many players who made it to the circle of elite round-robins and bounced out, Salov probably found it hard to go back to opens and tough Russian events with no prize funds. As far as I know he still lives in Spain and has yet to play a serious game this year".

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

The harsh words on this site are not helpful in the process of chossing the candidate which the CFC endorses and/or votes for. I am not sure if much is being accomplished with this discussion in this location at this time.

I appreciate Vlad's candor and his willingness to jump into the cesspool known as Chesstalk,
but he might be fighting a losing ending in here - "there are too many experts here!"
LOL

[Mark Biong]

Re: Endorsemeent over Vote: FIDE Election for President

As powerful as a SKUNK!

[Mark Biong]

Re: FIDE Election for President

You sound like a Windsor wind blowing SKUNK odour. You must be from Windsor right?